Disposed

Gyan Chandra Bharti and Others v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2023/1642/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought regularization, seniority determination, and recognition of past services. The court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to verify records and decide a pending representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioners permitted to file fresh representation for respondent to decide within three months.

Gyan Chandra Bharti and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1642 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Gyan Chandra Bharti And Others Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

¶6

"I. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization from the date when juniors as well as similarly situated employees to the petitioners with the consequential benefits.

¶7

II. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite parties to determine the Seniority among the employees who have been considered for regularization by means of the regularization letter-dated- 26-05-2017 and the petitioners.

¶8

III. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite parties to add rendered services of the petitioners in between year, 1998 up to 2000 with the services rendered after given the appointment under due process of selection.

¶9

IV. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite parties to consider and decide the representation-dated-03-022023 in the light of Government order-dated-03-01-2017 as well as the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others Versus Uma Devi 3 and others which is contained as Annexure No. 16 to this writ petition."

¶10

The contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were entitled for regularisation having rendered the services with the respondents as has been done in the case of persons who are similarly placed.

¶11

To demonstrates that the persons who are similarly placed have been granted regularisation, the Counsel for the petitioners relies upon Annexure-11 to the writ petition.

¶12

A supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has been filed today, which is taken on record wherein it has been reiterated that the persons who are junior to the petitioners, namely, Sunil, Rooprani and Reena have been regularised on 26.05.2017 whereas the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents.

¶13

The Counsel for the petitioners further argues that even the seniority list prepared by the respondent is incorrect for which the petitioners have moved a representation.

¶14

Considering the fact that the issue can be decided after verifying the records in accordance with law by the respondent no.3, the present petition is disposed off permitting the petitioners to file a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent no.3 who shall take decision in the light of the documents submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶15

This order has been passed in the presence of Sri Namit Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents no.3 and 4.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.3.2023 akverma

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gyan Chandra Bharti and Others v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyan Chandra Bharti and Others v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pushkar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Basic Education, Civil Sectt. Govt. of U.P. Lko and Others

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Vijai Luxmi Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Tripathi Vs Secy. State Cane Service Authority Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Rakesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Culture, Lko. and 2 Others

Rama Kant Trivedi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development and 2 Others